The Man22 wrote:It's really simple. If Stolarz is going to play in the Memorial Cup then the suspension needed to be cut short.

It's an unfair advantage for the "other" teams in the tournament. The 3 teams that play London should play against London's best line up. If Stolarz is not eligible for one of the games then the first team the Knights play would have an unfair advantage because on paper said team would play against London's back up. The other 2 teams would have to beat the Knights starting goalie.

Simple.

I look at a team playing short-handed due to suspensions the same way I look at injuries for teams....'suck it up'Especially since most suspensions are self-inflicted by the player/team!

If they cut short suspensions then they should also bring make the rule that Memorial Cup teams can pick up one player from the league they are representing! But will fans complain itwould make a mockery of the Memorial Cup?...If it does, then so does allowing a suspended player back in!^ I believe that could only be used to replace an injured player.

As a penniless Canadian society if I want to add my 2 cents worth to any debate I must now round it down therefore I would be back to zero resulting in my opinion being now and forever worthless.

Re: Stolarz suspension

The Man22 wrote:It's really simple. If Stolarz is going to play in the Memorial Cup then the suspension needed to be cut short.

It's an unfair advantage for the "other" teams in the tournament. The 3 teams that play London should play against London's best line up. If Stolarz is not eligible for one of the games then the first team the Knights play would have an unfair advantage because on paper said team would play against London's back up. The other 2 teams would have to beat the Knights starting goalie.

Simple.

Do you need a cat scan? How is it fair to the other teams? A guy commits this offence and then gets a get out of jail free card? Take off those glasses, the rose lenses have affected your brain.

Darryl Sutter to Jerome Iginla one night in Montreal..."Did you bring your dress tonight? No? Well you shouldve because you're playing like a woman."
Belleville Bulls 9
London Knights 2

No Robbie I don't need a Cat scan. I made a valid point. You don't like it and you name call. Classy as always.

It's making the tournament a level playing field for the teams from the O, W and Q. If the O and Q have to play the Knights with Patterson in net it might be an easier victory then with Stolarz in net. That will put the W team at a disadvantage as they would have to beat Stolarz.

Let's not forget that goal differential plays a part in tie breakers. A better goalie in net could mean a goal or two less per game for the O and Q teams against the Knights.

If this was any other team in the world there would be no issues. It's the Knights so it's wrong in every way.

The Man22 wrote:It's really simple. If Stolarz is going to play in the Memorial Cup then the suspension needed to be cut short.

It's an unfair advantage for the "other" teams in the tournament. The 3 teams that play London should play against London's best line up. If Stolarz is not eligible for one of the games then the first team the Knights play would have an unfair advantage because on paper said team would play against London's back up. The other 2 teams would have to beat the Knights starting goalie.

Simple.

I know bizarre logic when I see it, and this is bizarre logic. But I'll play along. Stolarz has 2 games of suspension left. So in the interest of fairness to the other teams, how about he sits out the first 3 games.

Donna

24 OHL arenas and counting...

If the instigator rule is killing hockey now, having to fight every time you throw a clean hit would kill hockey even faster.

The Man22 wrote:No Robbie I don't need a Cat scan. I made a valid point. You don't like it and you name call. Classy as always.

It's making the tournament a level playing field for the teams from the O, W and Q. If the O and Q have to play the Knights with Patterson in net it might be an easier victory then with Stolarz in net. That will put the W team at a disadvantage as they would have to beat Stolarz.

Let's not forget that goal differential plays a part in tie breakers. A better goalie in net could mean a goal or two less per game for the O and Q teams against the Knights.

If this was any other team in the world there would be no issues. It's the Knights so it's wrong in every way.

This is not the first nor the last time this has happened.

Yeah, I see now. The other sucker teams had goalies that played by the rules and didn't try to take an opposing player's head off. Jokes on them! They could have been slashing guys left right and centre with impunity!

Seriously, give me a break. You don't see how this could be viewed as unfair to the other teams?

Darryl Sutter to Jerome Iginla one night in Montreal..."Did you bring your dress tonight? No? Well you shouldve because you're playing like a woman."
Belleville Bulls 9
London Knights 2

The Man22 wrote:No Robbie I don't need a Cat scan. I made a valid point. You don't like it and you name call. Classy as always.

It's making the tournament a level playing field for the teams from the O, W and Q. If the O and Q have to play the Knights with Patterson in net it might be an easier victory then with Stolarz in net. That will put the W team at a disadvantage as they would have to beat Stolarz.

Let's not forget that goal differential plays a part in tie breakers. A better goalie in net could mean a goal or two less per game for the O and Q teams against the Knights.

If this was any other team in the world there would be no issues. It's the Knights so it's wrong in every way.

This is not the first nor the last time this has happened.

Yeah, I see now. The other sucker teams had goalies that played by the rules and didn't try to take an opposing player's head off. Jokes on them! They could have been slashing guys left right and centre with impunity!

Seriously, give me a break. You don't see how this could be viewed as unfair to the other teams?

The Man22 wrote:No Robbie I don't need a Cat scan. I made a valid point. You don't like it and you name call. Classy as always.

It's making the tournament a level playing field for the teams from the O, W and Q. If the O and Q have to play the Knights with Patterson in net it might be an easier victory then with Stolarz in net. That will put the W team at a disadvantage as they would have to beat Stolarz.

Let's not forget that goal differential plays a part in tie breakers. A better goalie in net could mean a goal or two less per game for the O and Q teams against the Knights.

If this was any other team in the world there would be no issues. It's the Knights so it's wrong in every way.

This is not the first nor the last time this has happened.

Yeah, I see now. The other sucker teams had goalies that played by the rules and didn't try to take an opposing player's head off. Jokes on them! They could have been slashing guys left right and centre with impunity!

Seriously, give me a break. You don't see how this could be viewed as unfair to the other teams?

What about buying back suspensions?

ALL teams are on level playing fields when it comes to buying back suspensions - not just those hosting the Memorial Cup. You can't compare the two situations.

Donna

24 OHL arenas and counting...

If the instigator rule is killing hockey now, having to fight every time you throw a clean hit would kill hockey even faster.

Danger Girl wrote:ALL teams are on level playing fields when it comes to buying back suspensions - not just those hosting the Memorial Cup. You can't compare the two situations.

All teams are on a level playing field when it comes to reviewing suspensions for playing in the Memorial Cup are they not?

No. All other teams take at least 16 games to get to the Memorial Cup.

So your issue isn't with the suspension being reduced it's with the suspension being reduced for a back door host? If it were a team that won it's way into the Memorial Cup that had a players suspension reduced then you would have no issue with it?

I think what some individuals are failing to do by comparing Stolarz suspension to the O'Keefe suspension are apples and oranges. From everything I have seen that has been written about that O'Keefe was suspended indefinitely and they lifted the suspension. Indefinite could have been 2 games, 8 games, this case it turned out to be 24. With Stolarz he had a set suspension given to him by the league and they lifted the remaining 2 games. If the OHL wanted to do something they should have not given him a suspension at all. If you don't like the last 2 games of the suspension maybe the Knights should have played better and forced the series to 7 games or better yet actually win the series. Instead London got a nice handout from the OHL. It's up to London to make the best of it or they will just be called the Buffalo Knights or the London Bills take your pick.

MagicMan wrote:I think what some individuals are failing to do by comparing Stolarz suspension to the O'Keefe suspension are apples and oranges. From everything I have seen that has been written about that O'Keefe was suspended indefinitely and they lifted the suspension. Indefinite could have been 2 games, 8 games, this case it turned out to be 24. With Stolarz he had a set suspension given to him by the league and they lifted the remaining 2 games. If the OHL wanted to do something they should have not given him a suspension at all. If you don't like the last 2 games of the suspension maybe the Knights should have played better and forced the series to 7 games or better yet actually win the series. Instead London got a nice handout from the OHL. It's up to London to make the best of it or they will just be called the Buffalo Knights or the London Bills take your pick.

The Man22 wrote:No Robbie I don't need a Cat scan. I made a valid point. You don't like it and you name call. Classy as always.

It's making the tournament a level playing field for the teams from the O, W and Q. If the O and Q have to play the Knights with Patterson in net it might be an easier victory then with Stolarz in net. That will put the W team at a disadvantage as they would have to beat Stolarz.

Let's not forget that goal differential plays a part in tie breakers. A better goalie in net could mean a goal or two less per game for the O and Q teams against the Knights.

If this was any other team in the world there would be no issues. It's the Knights so it's wrong in every way.

This is not the first nor the last time this has happened.

So by your rationale, if a player has to miss the iirst game or two of the round robin due to injury, they should have to sit out the entire round robin? Perhaps the 2005 Knights cup deserves an asterisk because they played a different goalie (Coleman) in their 3rd game than their first two (Dennis)? Also if a player does something worthy of a suspension in game 1 or 2 of the round robin, they shouldn't be suspended due to the same logic?

Speaking of memorial cup fairness, is it fair that one team got a guaranteed spot in the cup 2 times out of 4 while 17 other OHL teams didn't even get it once?

Danger Girl wrote:No. All other teams take at least 16 games to get to the Memorial Cup.

So your issue isn't with the suspension being reduced it's with the suspension being reduced for a back door host? If it were a team that won it's way into the Memorial Cup that had a players suspension reduced then you would have no issue with it?

No, my issue is with the League's willingness to throw out its own rules in order to ice what it thinks is the best possible team at the Memorial Cup, whatever it takes. If Stolarz had been a oft-scratched benchwarmer, this wouldn't be an issue and he'd be sitting the first 2 games.

Donna

24 OHL arenas and counting...

If the instigator rule is killing hockey now, having to fight every time you throw a clean hit would kill hockey even faster.

I am a Knights' fan who doesn't accept that logic either since it would imply that there's never any grounds for suspending a player during the Memorial Cup. Of course, there must be certain suspension-worthy cases that would extend into the Memorial Cup tournament. One shouldn't get a free pass to play in the Memorial Cup. However, this is not to say that Stolarz did not deserve to have his suspension reduced.

The rules are in place to allow for an appeal. A precedent has been set to shorten suspensions to permit players to play in the Memorial Cup. NOTE: the fact that there is this precedent doesn't mean that one can cite the 'precedent' and a suspension will be automatically reduced. And, in fact, the precedent was NOT the reason justifying the reduction of the suspension.The appeal process means that each case (O'Keefe, Simon, Stolarz, or whomever) needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case bases. So, a player can have his suspension upheld into the Memorial Cup or reduced to allow him to play...it's left to the discretion of the committee/league.

If you're not happy with the decision, it's not the fault of the Hunters or Knights fans although if it makes you feel better, take your shots!

And, if you actually subscribe to the theory that the Knights' organization is the beneficiary of league 'favours' creating an uneven playing field, and you still follow the league, what does that say about YOU?

"One man is as ten thousand for me, if he is best" (Heraclitus, fr.49)

"It is not a foregone conclusion that the quest for truth for its own sake is simply in harmony with the needs of man as a social and political being", Leo Strauss.

Nelli27 wrote:I am a Knights' fan who doesn't accept that logic either since it would imply that there's never any grounds for suspending a player during the Memorial Cup. Of course, there must be certain suspension-worthy cases that would extend into the Memorial Cup tournament. One shouldn't get a free pass to play in the Memorial Cup. However, this is not to say that Stolarz did not deserve to have his suspension reduced.

The rules are in place to allow for an appeal. A precedent has been set to shorten suspensions to permit players to play in the Memorial Cup. NOTE: the fact that there is this precedent doesn't mean that one can cite the 'precedent' and a suspension will be automatically reduced. And, in fact, the precedent was NOT the reason justifying the reduction of the suspension.The appeal process means that each case (O'Keefe, Simon, Stolarz, or whomever) needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case bases. So, a player can have his suspension upheld into the Memorial Cup or reduced to allow him to play...it's left to the discretion of the committee/league.

If you're not happy with the decision, it's not the fault of the Hunters or Knights fans although if it makes you feel better, take your shots!

And, if you actually subscribe to the theory that the Knights' organization is the beneficiary of league 'favours' creating an uneven playing field, and you still follow the league, what does that say about YOU?

You can't cite O'Keefe as precedent. O'Keefe was suspended "indefinitely". Stolarz was suspended for a definite number of games. They didn't reduce O'Keefe's sentence at all. Perhaps they should have suspended Stolarz "indefinitely" then reinstated him before the Memorial Cup. I would have felt much better about that. I think many of us would have. And we'd chalk it up to just another suspension they got wrong. But the way they did it reeks of favoritism and foul play.

If it is justifiable to repeal the suspension of a star player who took a baseball-type swing to another player's head, then there really isn't anything to talk about here and the "discretion of the committee" is a joke. This was exactly the type of non-hockey play that should be penalized the most.

This being said, I don't think the League has purposely favored the Knights. In this case, the Knights happened to benefit. But I think the same decision would have been reach had it been a star player on any other host team.

Donna

24 OHL arenas and counting...

If the instigator rule is killing hockey now, having to fight every time you throw a clean hit would kill hockey even faster.